Guardian outs North Korea: Why?

TomF

This really surprised me, the Guardian Newspaper "outing" the atrocities of the North Korea socialist regime in a series titled: " Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag" Why are they doing this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html

mike65

*cough* Why would anyone think the Grauniad would not want to report on such matters? Is it because they are mad Liberal-Lefties who cheer on crazed marxist-Leninist dictatorships?

Mike.

mr_angry

I felt sick just reading that. It makes Saddam look like a positiviely benevolant dictator in comparison (sorry :rolleyes:).

It was disturbing to read the account of the soldier actually posted there - the way he described feeling no sympathy for the people being killed. I've heard of brainwashing before, but hearing of people actually finding that acceptable... even with some extreme brainwashing... how could you accept that???

Sick. That's the only word for it. I've never been a supporter of war, but this kind of behaviour should be stopped by any means necessary, and without the need for phony intelligence to help justify it.

[Edit]

I was under the impression TomF was asking why the Koreans were doing this, not why the Guardian were reporting it. At least, I hope so.

[/Edit]

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Why are they doing this?

Who? The Guardian?

Looks to me like its the BBC who are "doing it", and the Guardian simply reporting that the BBC are going to report on it.

The most obvious "why" is that its a genuine story, especially if the evidence / witness accounts for this are only coming to light. Genuine stories of this type are generally newsworthy.

Because the story is couched in terms of "personal accounts", the timing is interesting. Here we once more have a BBC article reporting on what can only be relatvely uncorroborated evidence. Yes, there may be more than one source, but if all that exists are personal testinonies, then its hardly "firm". This could also be a "why" - the BBC could be daring the government to slap them down again for reporting an uncorroborated story.

This would probably be a very poor move for the government - to be seen to attempt to quash a story of this nature could be seen as tacit acceptance of the activity. On the other hand, if the government do nothing, they may allow the BBC to - in the future - allege double-standards...that reporting about the wrongdoings of a foreign, oppressive regime on uncorroborated evidence is fine, but that doing it to your own government is unacceptable.

So that gives us a tenuous, but rather elegant "why" of the BBC basically doing what it can to make life awkward for the British government whilst still obeying the rules. I think thats a bit unlikely though....I can't see what the BBC would stand to gain from walking such a path.

On a second level, the timing is also interesting because it serves to highlight the fact that Hussein was by no means the only brutal tyrant out there, and indeed may not even have been the most brutal or tyrannical at the time of his being ousted. This would make it even harder for the British Government to fall back on the Humanitarian Excuse for invading Iraq should they decide to follow the US lead and finally admit that the WMD intelligence was - to a large extent - wrong. But now, if they wish to do so, they may begin to face some awkward questions such as : if N.Koreans are suffering so much, why was Saddam the one who had to be removed?

Personally, I favour the more simple idea I offered first. The timing may have been tweaked because of the ideas I mentioned later, but I wouldn't put too much weight in that assessment.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by TomF
Why are they doing this?

You must have some pretty strange ideas about the Guardian .. have you ever actually read the paper?

TomF

I suppose my surprise may be based on a misunderstanding on a newspaper's function. Are the powers at the Guardian suggesting by the North Korea series that the regime is a very bad one, and something should be done about it? Or do the editors see their function as simply reporting the facts and then going-on to the next paper-selling story?

If something should be done about North Korea, who should be doing it? Should the UN pass a stern resolution? Should the EU send a flotilla to North Korea to cow the government there into better behaviour?

If it is just an interesting story to make us go "tut-tut" over breakfast, then is the Guardian something like the National Geographic magazine, publishing interesting stories of the unusual and sometimes awful things that people and nations get up to, but without the photographs?

Akrasia

I think Everyone agrees that North Korea is a horrible regime (based on the very limited information we have on the situation)
Just because you are not right wing does not mean you support so called communist dictators. Surprise surprise but most anti-capitalists dont support stalin either

From my perspective as a libertarian (anarchist) the totalitarian regime that exists in North Korea is worse than capitalism because the people there have absolutely no freedom

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Akrasia
Just because you are not right wing does not mean you support so called communist dictators. Surprise surprise but most anti-capitalists dont support stalin either

That's because Stalin decided he didn't need their support

jesus_thats_gre

'I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,' he said. 'The parents, son and and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.'

That has to be one of most disturbing things I have ever read...

Scruff

Because it a country run by horrible evil people me thinks. That should be obvious.
Ye dont see them outing Iceland do ye?

Saw the documentry the article is based on the other night. There was this former officer who ran a prison camp calmly recounting how he had a whole family gassed (that jesus_thats_gre has quoted) and how he felt no remorse whats so ever, even for the kids because everyone in North Korea is brought up to beleive in the hereditary belief where the sins of a person remain in their family for 3 generations. So kids and grand kids of the person who commited the "crime" are just as guilty.
He only started to suspect that criminals and their children were capable of basic human emotions like love when he saw the parents of that family trying to save their kids untill the last moment where they died themselves.

He was also going on about how he enjoyed torturing people for about 3 years until the buzz wore off.

shocking stuff altogether. made iraq under Saddam look like a nice holiday destination.

Frank Grimes

I don't think why they are doing it is important.
Maybe what I'm about to say is one reason they are doing it, but perhaps by highlighting what that regime is doing to it's own population will put the US/UK foreign policy wrt "brutal dictators" etc. into perspective for some of the pro Iraqi war camp.

Typedef

Is there any actual proof for this?

Is this going to be another reason to invade another country, al-la WMD in Iraq?

Wasn't North Korea named along with Iraq in the Axis of evil speech? Bluntly, considering a war has been fought on predicated lies (which elements of the media help spread), I would find it difficult to believe this 'story' as anything but a fabrication to help justify continued hostility and possibly a second War during a second Bush term in office.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Typedef
Is there any actual proof for this?

Is this going to be another reason to invade another country, al-la WMD in Iraq?

Wasn't North Korea named along with Iraq in the Axis of evil speech? Bluntly, considering a war has been fought on predicated lies (which elements of the media help spread), I would find it difficult to believe this 'story' as anything but a fabrication to help justify continued hostility and possibly a second War during a second Bush term in office.

The recent documentary on BBC2 (Holidays in the Axis of Evil) was another good program on the hell that is N.K.

Of course the former (currently) pro-Communists (see George Galloway, Boyd-Barrett, etc) will always oppose anything the US do, simply because they like to hang onto any scrap of evidence to prove that Marxism/Communism isn't that bad. This was a major reason why Galloway looked so pleased to shake Saddam Hussein's hand - he was a fellow socialist. George Galloway is also quoted as saying that one of the saddest periods of his life was during the collapse of Communism. Therefore, they tend to stay very quiet or even question every scrap of evidence of the brutality of regimes such as that in North Korea. I'll take US-style Capitalism any day over any form of Marxism.

Lex_Diamonds

Did anyone see that documentary about North Korea a few years ago on channel 4? It was all hidden footage taken by an undercover reporter at great risk to himself, infact one of his contacts disappeared under mysterious circumstances. But the point is, this program showed what is happening there first hand. They are so hungry up there that they are driven to cannibalism, and sell human flesh in markets, the authorities try and deal with this through arbitrary executions and flinging people into the previously described concentration camps.

The sad fact is the international community will ignore this and just hope for things to get better when Kim relinquishes power.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Of course the former (currently) pro-Communists (see George Galloway, Boyd-Barrett, etc) will always oppose anything the US do, simply because they like to hang onto any scrap of evidence to prove that Marxism/Communism isn't that bad.

Not entirely true. If there's one thing that Trots (and the afrementioned are Trots, btw) hate more than capitalism, it's Stalinism. And more often than not, other Trots.





Q. What do you call three Trots sitting together?

A. An inevitable split.

ReefBreak

The sad fact is the international community will ignore this and just hope for things to get better when Kim relinquishes power.

Or the US could do something about it, such as when they intervened in Bosnia. In fact, at the moment the US and Britain are the only country that are doing anything at all yet they are still getting stick over it: Imperialist America, etc, etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
I suppose my surprise may be based on a misunderstanding on a newspaper's function.
...
Or do the editors see their function as simply reporting the facts and then going-on to the next paper-selling story?

Well, editors generally don't report

I would imagine that the board / upper management of a media-business decide the "tone" and political leaning of the paper.

The editor's job would strike me more as ensuring that the individual approved articles fit with this tone.

It then boils down to reporters to make sure that the stories that they pick up are gonna fit with that, and are reported in the appropriate way. Given thet reporters will have their own beliefs anyway, its not too hard for a paper to find reporters who will report the way it wants without having to have the law laid down on them.

If it is just an interesting story to make us go "tut-tut" over breakfast, then is the Guardian something like the National Geographic magazine, publishing interesting stories of the unusual and sometimes awful things that people and nations get up to, but without the photographs?

Well - like I pointed out in my previous post...the Guargian is doing little more than informing the reader what the substance of a forthcoming BBC program is.

This would tie in nicely with how I would see the Guardian in general. I would never expect to see them lead a story like this - its just too contentious.

Reporting that someone else is going to do a detailed report on it....thats just simple, relatively risk-free, and gives you an "in" should the story every become serious news.

So maybe your question should really be "why are the BBC doing this" ????

Sparks

Originally posted by mr_angry
It was disturbing to read the account of the soldier actually posted there - the way he described feeling no sympathy for the people being killed. I've heard of brainwashing before, but hearing of people actually finding that acceptable... even with some extreme brainwashing... how could you accept that???

Not to hijack, but that's not surprising. You can see the same attitude in soldiers from just about every country in just about every action where people are killed. Recently we've seen it from the US (marines killing ten-year-olds and defending their actions as just, soldiers firing on ambulances, apache pilots firing on unarmed farmers, the works) and Israel, but we've seen it in the past from UK soldiers, French soldiers, you name it.

Which isn't to say it's right, you understand - just that it makes no sense to consider this a surprise, unless you've studiously avoiding knowing anything about the reality of the military for your entire life to this point.

growler

The Guardian report on a very regular basis on all kinds of atrocities around the world (as do most newspapers) such as Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Algeria , Liberia , Haiti, Phillipines etc. It's their job, nothing new or remarkable there.

The very vivid and personal descriptions that both they and the BBC gave of some of the horrors that go on in NK are probably more emotive than we are used to reading in a broadsheet.
If anything they are simply making people wonder why Kim manages to stay in power , though an obvious and bloody tyrant, while Saddam became world enemy no 1 for his documented crimes against his own people and the kurds. Why is NK different ? well they actually might have some nasty missiles and could use them on the South, the Americans or Japan they don't have any oil , and the entire population is so far removed from reality (if one is to believe any of the documentaries about like inside NK) that they would resist any forces of "regime change" tooth and nail.

Zulu

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Or the US could do something about it, such as when they intervened in Bosnia. In fact, at the moment the US and Britain are the only country that are doing anything at all yet they are still getting stick over it: Imperialist America, etc, etc.

God bless America for removing Saddam and his evil regime and its WMD.
Fact is North K. are a nuclear power and China are a neighbour, they won't do anything more than way a stick at them.
Perhaps people give the US and Britan stick for ignoring the UN.
Perhaps people give the US stick for undermining and opting out of a international criminal court? - Just a suggestion. :rolleyes:

Lead by example not by the gun.

mr_angry

TBH, despite the fact that I have often criticised America, it has never been for the singular action of removing evil dictators, but instead for the methods they have chosen for doing so, and the hidden agendas for doing so. I'm very, very happy that Saddam has gone.

I'd be equally as happy if Kim Jong II was captured and tried for his crimes. I'm also equally as critical of the EU for not yet having a common foreign policy, and themselves treating this kind of dictatorship as "not our problem".

Just as a side-note: I wonder how long it will take to free the North Koreans of their brainwashing? As pointed out by Sparks, if the entire society believe that the sins of their forefathers pass on three generations, how do you stop them carrying out such retribution even if Kim Jong II is deposed? Doesn't seem to me like there's an easy solution to that one...

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
Lead by example not by the gun.

As opposed to "Peace by Superior Firepower" ??

Akrasia

As a committed anti-war activist and alleged anti-american, I would like to state my personal position that If America or the UN did decide that the North Korean people had suffered enough and wanted to gather support for a coalition to liberate these people i would support it. Of course i would support it much more if there was a possibility of Kim and his regime being toppled without having to subject the civillians to a long and brutal war, but i just dont see how North Korea is going to reform from within or that the people will start their own uprising from within because of the fear and brainwashing that is so powerful there.

Of course, America is very unlikely to ever go after N Korea because there isn't very much to gain and a lot to lose.

If the UN could find a way to send in human rights inspectors into N.Korea it would be a very good start

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry
As pointed out by Sparks, if the entire society believe that the sins of their forefathers pass on three generations, how do you stop them carrying out such retribution even if Kim Jong II is deposed? Doesn't seem to me like there's an easy solution to that one...

Then you accept that there's no easy solution and start looking at the harder ones.

For excample, we look at the North of Ireland and say it will take generations to really find a solution, even if the current process works. We say the same about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Then we look at Korea and other problems and think "how can we solve this ASAP", and get disheartened because we figure out that we can't...or worse...decide that short-term action with virtually no possibility of success is preferable to long-term action which may stand a more realistic chance.

How do you deal with a 3-generation stigma? Well, the obvious logic is that you start by accepting it will take a minimum of 3 generations to do so. Then you look at your generation, and figure out where in the process you are (we are at the start wrt. N.K.) and figure out how you might start dealing with such a problem.

I know I mentioned this in a previous thread, and the general reaction was pretty much what I expected - people are interested in the McFix. Preferably with a side-order of fries. We want it fast, we want it cheap, and ideally we want some tangible benefits for ourselves out of it all. In my view the McFix is to the solution as the McNugget is to healthy eating. The sooner we accept that thats what it is, the sooner we can start actually sorting out our "global diet".

jc

mr_angry

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my post. Kim Jong II is only part of the problem, and deposing him is only part of the solution. The halting of this behaviour wont come about as soon as he goes - it will be a long, slow, painful process.

Akrasia

well, actually, people can change really really quickly if the right conditions exist. if people were suddenly freed from the mind control that they are living under then they might wake up in as little as a few years.

mr_angry

I think that's wishful thinking, to be honest. If you look around the world at examples like Cyprus, Rwanda, and even our own Northern Ireland, it can take decades just to implement those "right conditions", let alone to have people flourish. And North Korea is hardly the kind of area that is as well-supervised as Northern Ireland and Cyprus - policing this kind of behaviour could be a very difficult task in itself.

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
As opposed to "Peace by Superior Firepower" ??

Exactly what he said

Zulu

Originally posted by Akrasia
well, actually, people can change really really quickly if the right conditions exist. if people were suddenly freed from the mind control that they are living under then they might wake up in as little as a few years.

Your dead right - do you know how many allies were killed in the occupation of Germany after WW2? - NONE!

It says alot about the supposed liberation of Iraq

TomF

When I read the question, how long does it take for a society to wake up, I quickly think about Mussolini's Italy after Il Duce was displayed hanging from his heels, Tojo & Co.'s Japan in late 1945, Nazi Germany in early 1945, Communist China after Mao's Little Red Book went out of print, the USSR after it ran out of everything, Roumania after Ceausescu went up against the wall, and (looking a little way into the future) Castro's Cuba after the Maximum Leader assumes room temperature and North Korea after the current Divinity in Office is deposed.

I think the answer to the original question is: not long at all.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey

Well, editors generally don't report

I would imagine that the board / upper management of a media-business decide the "tone" and political leaning of the paper.

The editor's job would strike me more as ensuring that the individual approved articles fit with this tone.

It then boils down to reporters to make sure that the stories that they pick up are gonna fit with that, and are reported in the appropriate way. Given thet reporters will have their own beliefs anyway, its not too hard for a paper to find reporters who will report the way it wants without having to have the law laid down on them.

As a side note this is incorrect. Most editors, in Ireland, do report. Aslo the function of a newspaper, as you describe, is incorrect. In most cases the "tone", as you put it, is decided in the news room. This comprises od the Managing Editor, News editor and sub editors below them. I have worked for all the national daily broadsheet newspapers in Ireland, and the w/end Broadsheets (with the exception of the SI) and my above statement would be true in ALL cases.

If you take the example of the SBP, where this article is quoted from, the editor Ted Harding reports on a weekly basis. His predecessor Damian Kiberd also reported on a weekly basis. The SBP is wholly owned by Thomas Crosbie Holdings ltd. Whom have a diverse range of news products from the examiner to regionals. To try to put a particular "tone" acroos this titles would be impossible and would infringe on the santicty of the managing editor, who is responsible for all editorial decisions within a newspaper.

your comments on the reporters are a bit closer to the reality. While Journalists should not be influenced by their own beliefs, it is probably impossible for them to be totally impartial. The only truely editorially impartial reporter I have come across (IMO) is the afore mentionedd Damian Kiberd. A true Irish genius.